Dataset Information

Cardiac Specialists' Perspectives on Barriers to Cardiac Rehabilitation Referral and Participation in a Low-Resource Setting.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiac specialists are arguably the most influential providers in ensuring patients access cardiac rehabilitation (CR). Physician barriers to referral have been scantly investigated outside of high-income settings, and not qualitatively.

Aim

This study investigated cardiac specialists' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to patient CR participation in a low-resource setting, with a focus on referral.

Methods

In this qualitative study, focus groups were conducted with conventional content analysis. Thirteen of 14 eligible cardiac specialists working in Yazd, Iran, participated in 1 or both focus groups (n = 9 and n = 10, respectively). The recording of the first focus group was transcribed into a word file verbatim, and the accuracy of the content of all field notes and the transcripts was approved by the research team, which was then analyzed inductively. Following a similar process, saturation was achieved with the second focus group.

Results

Four themes emerged: "physician factors," "center factors," "patient factors," and "cultural factors." Regarding "physician factors," most participants mentioned shortage of time. Regarding "center factors," most participants mentioned poor physician-patient-center coordination. In "patient factors," the subcategories that arose were socioeconomic challenges and clinical condition of the patients. "Cultural factors" related to lack of belief in behavioral/preventive medicine.

Conclusions

Barriers to CR referral and participation were multilevel, as in high-resource settings. However, relative recency of the introduction of CR in these settings seemed to cause great lack of awareness. Cultural beliefs may differ, and communication from CR programs to referring providers was a particular challenge in this setting.

SUBMITTER: Ghanbari-Firoozabadi M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8282146 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceWhile effective, cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR) as traditionally delivered is not well implemented in lower-resource settings.ObjectiveTo test the noninferiority of hybrid CR compared with traditional CR in terms of cardiovascular events.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic, multicenter, parallel arm, open-label randomized clinical trial (the Hybrid Cardiac Rehabilitation Trial [HYCARET]) with blinded outcome assessment was conducted at 6 referral centers in Chile. Adults aged 18 years or older who had a cardiovascular event or procedure, no contraindications to exercise, and access to a mobile telephone were eligible and recruited between April 1, 2019, and March 15, 2020, with follow-up until July 29, 2021.InterventionsParticipants were randomized 1:1 in permuted blocks to the experimental arm, which received 10 center-based supervised exercise sessions plus counseling in 4 to 6 weeks and then were supported at home via telephone calls and text messages through weeks 8 to 12, or the control arm, which received the standard CR of 18 to 22 sessions with exercises and education in 8 to 12 weeks.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was cardiovascular events or mortality. Secondary outcomes were quality of life, return to work, and lifestyle behaviors measured with validated questionnaires; muscle strength and functional capacity, measured through physical tests; and program adherence and exercise-related adverse events, assessed using checklists.ResultsA total of 191 participants were included (mean [SD] age, 58.74 [9.80] years; 145 [75.92%] male); 93 were assigned to hybrid CR and 98 to standard CR. At 1 year, events had occurred in 5 unique participants in the hybrid CR group (5.38%) and 9 in the standard CR group (9.18%). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the hybrid CR group had 3.80% (95% CI, -11.13% to 3.52%) fewer cardiovascular events than the standard CR group, and relative risk was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.20-1.68) for the primary outcome. In the per-protocol analysis at different levels of adherence to the intervention, all 95% CIs crossed the noninferiority boundary (eg, 20% adherence: absolute risk difference, -0.35% [95% CI, -7.56% to 6.85%]; 80% adherence: absolute risk difference, 3.30% [95% CI, -3.70% to 10.31%]). No between-group differences were found for secondary outcomes except adherence to supervised CR sessions (79.14% [736 of 930 supervised sessions] in the hybrid CR group vs 61.46% [1201 of 1954 sessions] in the standard CR group).Conclusions and relevanceThe results suggest that a hybrid CR program is noninferior to standard center-based CR in a low-resource setting, primarily in terms of recurrent cardiovascular events and potentially in terms of intermediate outcomes. Hybrid CR may induce superior adherence to supervised exercise. Clinical factors and patient preferences should inform CR model allocation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03881150.

Project description:Background: To help clarify a potential barrier to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) participation we sought to examine the association between musculoskeletal limitations (MSLs) and CR enrollment and participation. Methods: Consecutive CR eligible individuals hospitalized for a cardiac event (myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, and/or coronary artery bypass graft) between the months of November 2007 and May 2008, were asked to complete a mailed survey within 2 weeks after hospital discharge, assessing demographic factors, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), participation in CR and MSLs through a validated MSLs screening tool. CR enrollment rates were compared between patients with and without MSLs. Results: Three hundred and twenty-one (37%) of patients contacted responded to our survey, including 228 males (71%), with a mean age 68 ± 10.8 years, of whom 98% were Caucasian. Eighty-two percent of responders reported a musculoskeletal disorder at the time of hospital discharge. Arthritis was the most frequent diagnosis (45%). Muscle or joint pain sufficient to limit the ability to do moderate exercise was reported in 52% of the respondents. Problems with balance affected 37%, of whom 45% reported a fall within the previous year. No significant difference in CR enrollment was observed in respondents with and without MSLs [OR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.88-1.09), p = 0.750]. Similar results were found when severity and number of MSLs were taken into account. However, we found that when compared to those without MSLs, the presence of MSLs was associated with lower CR participation (OR = 0.80, 95%, CI: 0.65-0.97, p = 0.0252). Conclusion: Despite a high prevalence of MSLs among CR-eligible patients, we found no association between MSLs and CR enrollment. However, patients with MSLs attended significantly fewer CR sessions as compared to patients without them. CR programs should consider providing additional support and interventions to patients with MSLs in order to optimize their adherence to prescribed CR sessions.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to examine the efficacy of financial incentives to increase Medicaid patient participation in and completion of cardiac rehabilitation (CR).BackgroundParticipation in CR reduces morbidity, mortality, and hospitalizations while improving quality of life. Lower-socioeconomic status (SES) patients are much less likely to attend and complete CR, despite being at increased risk for recurrent cardiovascular events.MethodsA total of 130 individuals enrolled in Medicaid with a CR-qualifying cardiac event were randomized 1:1 to receive financial incentives on an escalating schedule ($4 to $50) for completing CR sessions or to receive usual care. Primary outcomes were CR participation (number of sessions completed) and completion (≥30 sessions completed). Secondary outcomes included changes in sociocognitive measurements (depressive/anxious symptoms, executive function), body composition (waist circumference, body mass index), fitness (peak VO2) over 4 months, and combined number of hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) contacts over 1 year.ResultsPatients randomized to the incentive condition completed more sessions (22.4 vs. 14.7, respectively; p = 0.013) and were almost twice as likely to complete CR (55.4% vs. 29.2%, respectively; p = 0.002) as controls. Incentivized patients were also more likely to experience improvements in executive function (p < 0.001), although there were no significant effects on other secondary outcomes. Patients who completed ≥30 sessions had 47% fewer combined hospitalizations and ED visits (p = 0.014), as reflected by a nonsignificant trend by study condition with 39% fewer hospital contacts in the incentive condition group (p = 0.079).ConclusionsFinancial incentives improve CR participation among lower-SES patients following a cardiac event. Increasing participation among lower-SES patients in CR is critical for positive longer-term health outcomes. (Increasing Cardiac Rehabilitation Participation Among Medicaid Enrollees; NCT02172820).

Project description:BackgroundIn low-resource settings, patient referral to a hospital is an essential part of the primary health care system. However, there is a paucity of study to explore the challenges and quality of referral coordination and communication.ObjectiveThe purpose of this research was to analyze the existing paper-based referral registration logbook for maternal and child health in general and women of reproductive age in particular, to improve referral coordination and evidence-based services in Low-Resource Settings.MethodsThis study analyzed the existing paper-based referral registration logbook (RRL) and card-sheet to explore the documentation of the referral management process, and the mechanism and quality of referrals between the health center (Jimma Health Center-case, Ethiopia) and the Hospital. A sample of 459 paper-based records from the referral registration logbook were digitized as part of a retrospective observational study. For data preprocessing, visualization, and analysis, we developed a python-based interactive referral clinical pathway tool. The data collection was conducted from August to October 2019. Jimma Health Center's RRL was used to examine how the referral decision was made and what cases were referred to the next level of care. However, the RRL was incomplete and did not contain the expected referral feedback from the hospital. Hence, we defined a new protocol to investigate the quality of referral. We compared the information in the health center's RRL with the medical records in the hospital to which the patients were referred. A total of 201 medical records of referred patients were examined.ResultsA total of 459 and 201 RRL records from the health center and the referred hospital, respectively, were analyzed in the study. Out of 459, 86.5% referred cases were between the age of 20 to 30 years. We found that "better patient management", "further patient management", and "further investigation" were the main health-center referral reasons and decisions. It accounted for 40.08%, 39.22%, and 16.34% of all 459 referrals, respectively. The leading and most common referral cases in the health center were long labor, prolonged first and second stage labor, labor or delivery complicated by fetal heart rate anomaly, preterm newborn, maternal care with breech presentation, premature rupture of membranes, malposition of the uterus, and antepartum hemorrhage. In the hospital RRL and card-sheet, the main referral-in reasons were technical examination, expert advice, further management, and evaluation. We found it overall impossible to match records from the referral logbook in the health center with the patient files in the hospital. Out of 201, only 13.9% of records were perfect matching entries between health center and referred hospital RRL. We found 84%, 14.4%, and 1.6% were appropriate, unnecessary and unknown referrals respectively.ConclusionThe paper illustrates the bottlenecks encountered in the quality assessment of the referrals. We analyzed the current status of the referral pathway, existing communications, guidelines and data quality, as a first step towards an end-to-end effective referral coordination and evidence-based referral service. Accessing, monitoring, and tracking the history of referred patients and referral feedback is challenging with the present paper-based referral coordination and communication system. Overall, the referral services were inadequate, and referral feedback was not automatically delivered, causing unnecessary delays.

Project description:BackgroundThe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on participation in and availability of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is unknown.MethodsAmong eligible Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we evaluated, by month, the number of CR sessions attended per 100 000 beneficiaries, individuals eligible to initiate CR, and centers offering in-person CR between January 2019 and December 2021. We compared these outcomes between 2 periods: December 1, 2019 through February 28, 2020 (period 1, before declaration of the pandemic-related national emergency) and October 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 (period 2, the latest period for which data are currently available).ResultsIn period 1, Medicare beneficiaries participated in (mean±SD) 895±84 CR sessions per 100 000 beneficiaries each month. After the national emergency was declared, CR participation sharply declined to 56 CR sessions per 100 000 beneficiaries in April 2020. CR participation recovered gradually through December 2021 but remained lower than prepandemic levels (period 2: 698±29 CR sessions per month per 100 000 beneficiaries, P=0.02). Declines in CR participation were most marked among dual Medicare and Medicaid enrollees and patients residing in rural areas or socially vulnerable communities. There was no statistically significant change in CR eligibility between the 2 periods. Compared with 2618±5 CR centers in period 1, there were 2464±7 in period 2 (P<0.01). Compared with CR centers that survived the pandemic, 220 CR centers that closed were more likely to be affiliated with public hospitals, located in rural areas, and serve the most socially vulnerable communities.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a persistent decline in CR participation and the closure of CR centers, which disproportionately affected rural and low-income patients and the most socially vulnerable communities. Innovation in CR financing and delivery is urgently needed to equitably enhance CR participation among Medicare beneficiaries.